Do other countries have to deal with a system like this? I have not heard of any other examples, but it seems like the kind of system that ISPs might try outside of the US. Particularly in countries with looser net neutrality laws.

Yeah, great ATT. I have no problem paying reasonable prices if I use more, but your current prices aren't reasonable. At all. Drop $30/month for your base package and then let me add some data on top of that.

Personally, a 200GB / 500GB / 1TB tier would be fine for 99% of users. If you really blow through 1TB a month then you should be paying for a business account.

It is there already, although a different type of cap.When I called my ISP complaining why is there a data cap I was told to upgrade to a better plan without it.

At least they gave you an option instead of just saying "stop hogging so much data" and hanging up. I assume they want you to upgrade to a much more expensive business plan that isn't much faster than your current one?

Well, this is the start of good things. The more ATT charges, the more pricing room there is for competition.

Considering that the field is limited to those that can afford the FCC lease, and the fact that the operators have more or less conspired to buy/trade all the open bandwidth and implement the data caps, competition in this regard is not so likely.

Yeah, great ATT. I have no problem paying reasonable prices if I use more, but your current prices aren't reasonable. At all. Drop $30/month for your base package and then let me add some data on top of that.

Personally, a 200GB / 500GB / 1TB tier would be fine for 99% of users. If you really blow through 1TB a month then you should be paying for a business account.

Well, 1TB is about 16 days worth of Netflix SuperHD (watching for 24 hours a day), so yeah, that's probably a reasonable limitation for now.

So, once they perfect the double dip, how will they go after the fabled triple dip? Charge the content provider, charge the client, and then charge themselves an administrative fee that is then invoiced to both the provider and client?

Man things are going to get so much worse before they get better, these guys are running ramshod.

Personally, a 200GB / 500GB / 1TB tier would be fine for 99% of users. If you really blow through 1TB a month then you should be paying for a business account.

This line of thinking still confuses me - data over the internet is not a restricted or finite resource, bandwidth is. I'm paying for a data connection that "promises" a certain peak bandwidth of X MB/s.

If I download 1TB in a month, but only use the internet between midnight and 5am when the pipes are empty, then I'm not impacting anything adversely or "using more than my fair share".

What should happen is that during peak usage periods, available bandwidth to consumers should be reduced, and then raised back again during off-peak times. But, this isn't as profitable since you can't charge for overages or charge content providers for "ignoring the cap". Basically, caps and such are being set up for business reasons, not technical ones, as has been covered many times.

Do other countries have to deal with a system like this? I have not heard of any other examples, but it seems like the kind of system that ISPs might try outside of the US. Particularly in countries with looser net neutrality laws.

In Australia, ISP's regularly have content and sites that don't count towards your monthly quota. On the other hand, because all ISP's have access to the infrastructure, it becomes a way to stand out from the competition. I can pick my ISP based on which one provides me with what I want.

Do other countries have to deal with a system like this? I have not heard of any other examples, but it seems like the kind of system that ISPs might try outside of the US. Particularly in countries with looser net neutrality laws.

No. Other countries put value in their citizens being able to access the internet.

Also this sucks even harder for consumers because in some areas or neighborhoods you're stuck with AT&T, not as bad as with Comcast or Time Warner but still, it's not a choice.

Do other countries have to deal with a system like this? I have not heard of any other examples, but it seems like the kind of system that ISPs might try outside of the US. Particularly in countries with looser net neutrality laws.

Those from Canukistan can correct me if I'm wrong, but they've got it worse up north than we do. They might have this situation in place, but then again, maybe their telcos are taking a "wait and see" approach to see how AT&T pulls this off and/or shoots themselves in the foot.

The sure are a creative bunch when it comes to getting around net neutrality and finding new ways to make a quick buck. Maybe a little of that ingenuity could be spared to figure out how to make the infrastructure better so you don't need to squeeze everyone to keep the pipes from filling?

I'm lucky enough to live in an area where the telco is owned by the province, and doesn't have caps. This forces the private cable company to be reasonable with their data caps. For example, the 25Mbps plan has a monthly cap of 250GB. I usually use maybe half that.

Personally, a 200GB / 500GB / 1TB tier would be fine for 99% of users. If you really blow through 1TB a month then you should be paying for a business account.

Apple's annual Fall extravaganza of updating almost all their software at once makes it pretty easy to blow through 200GB and 500GB. I copied the Mavericks installer between all my machines so I only downloaded it once, but between that, iOS updates, and the now quite-large first-party apps and programs I imagine I got close to 1TB in September and October with four people in my house using Netflix and iTunes.

Do other countries have to deal with a system like this? I have not heard of any other examples, but it seems like the kind of system that ISPs might try outside of the US. Particularly in countries with looser net neutrality laws.

Those from Canukistan can correct me if I'm wrong, but they've got it worse up north than we do. They might have this situation in place, but then again, maybe their telcos are taking a "wait and see" approach to see how AT&T pulls this off and/or shoots themselves in the foot.

Confirmed. Canada has been rated as one of the worst countries internet access/cost wise and our ISPs/telcos practice even shadier schemes than the Americans (see rogers billing people for their LAN traffic). However many issues stem from Canada's vast geography the large scattered rural population, but that doesn't excuse shady business practices. I think we still hold the top spot for per-capita internet users in the world however.

Do other countries have to deal with a system like this? I have not heard of any other examples, but it seems like the kind of system that ISPs might try outside of the US. Particularly in countries with looser net neutrality laws.

Those from Canukistan can correct me if I'm wrong, but they've got it worse up north than we do. They might have this situation in place, but then again, maybe their telcos are taking a "wait and see" approach to see how AT&T pulls this off and/or shoots themselves in the foot.

West Coasters don't have anything like this. In fact, we have some of the best Internet access in the country. There are multiple gigabit ISPs in the Lower Mainland of BC, Shaw goes up to 250/50 Mbps across the province (with unlimited options), Telus is running fibre-to-the-node everywhere they can to try and catch up (they're topping out at 25 Mbps DSL right now), there are some wireless ISPs getting involved, and TekSavvy is even available out here now.

However, once you get past Saskatchewan, things go downhill. Bell and Rogers are some of the worst ISPs around, continuously finding ways to dick their customers around. At least there's TekSavvy out there to help those poor souls, although they're limited by the Bell lines into the homes (although I hear they're starting to support cable?).

Public Knowledge called on Wheeler to "open an inquiry to examine the ways that these types of schemes impact an open Internet" and said that "A pay-for-play model for companies to reach subscribers won't help innovation, will surely stifle new entrants, and has no upside for consumers."

I can think of lots of upside for mobile consumers, if the services they want to use pay up. I would love Twitch.tv to pay for a service like that, and then charge me extra to use it. Because these websites are going to pay a HELL of a lot less for the usage than I would.

Twitch gets more viewers, viewers are happy they can watch more, and AT&T is happy because they get paid. If it's pay-per-use, any service could offer the same thing, by setting up a paywall and passing the cost on. There's got to be a sweet spot in there where everyone gets something.

Of course, if we all could have truly unlimited high-speed mobile data with no downsides, then it'd be a cash grab, that that just isn't how the market is structured. (Plus give everyone unlimited and the swamp the network, like iPhone geeks here did)

Personally, a 200GB / 500GB / 1TB tier would be fine for 99% of users. If you really blow through 1TB a month then you should be paying for a business account.

This line of thinking still confuses me - data over the internet is not a restricted or finite resource, bandwidth is. I'm paying for a data connection that "promises" a certain peak bandwidth of X MB/s.

If I download 1TB in a month, but only use the internet between midnight and 5am when the pipes are empty, then I'm not impacting anything adversely or "using more than my fair share".

What should happen is that during peak usage periods, available bandwidth to consumers should be reduced, and then raised back again during off-peak times. But, this isn't as profitable since you can't charge for overages or charge content providers for "ignoring the cap". Basically, caps and such are being set up for business reasons, not technical ones, as has been covered many times.

And ISPs are businesses operating in a free market capitalist society. So yes, data caps are in place for business reasons designed in ways to allow the companies that put them in place to make more money which is exactly what companies are supposed (and in the case of public companies, legally obligated) to do in a capitalist society. What about that is confusing?

You can argue that it's unfair, anti-consumer, somewhat underhanded and even a bit unethical, but it's not confusing in the slightest.

I it is kind of sad that Mr. Wheeler the person appointed to protect consumers sounds more like an spokesman for AT&T than looking in the public's best interest.

Instead of just assuming this would increase competitor and benefit consumers as the naive seems to have done, rather than actually caring for things like details on how it will end up benefiting the consumers.

These are the same exact arguments when these data cap "share everything" type plans came to mobile devices and it has just resulted in less choice, less competition and alot higher bills for consumers.

Well, this is the start of good things. The more ATT charges, the more pricing room there is for competition.

Considering that the field is limited to those that can afford the FCC lease, and the fact that the operators have more or less conspired to buy/trade all the open bandwidth and implement the data caps, competition in this regard is not so likely.

It's more like, "Considering that the field is limited to those that can afford to buy the FCC, and the fact that the operators have more or less bought all levels of Government anyhow, competition is effectively dead."

This is all part and parcel of the whittling away that is being done until it moves to the cable TV model. You'll pay a relatively high access fee ( to the one provider you have no choice to use because they own your town / area/ etc. ) that gets you almost nothing and then you'll be buying access to "channels" aka sites and services. And the providers of those sites and services will also be paying to both get on the network AND to access you. To finance themselves, you'll probably end up paying more for account with those providers( think higher cost for your netflix ). In the end, you'll pay, pay some more, be bent over and sodomized and then pay for that too.

This model will also serve to make the barrier of entry for new businesses much higher, thus giving the incumbents the kind of monopoly businesses generally had back in the day ( excepting telecomm who have always enjoyed a monopoly ).

Do other countries have to deal with a system like this? I have not heard of any other examples, but it seems like the kind of system that ISPs might try outside of the US. Particularly in countries with looser net neutrality laws.

Those from Canukistan can correct me if I'm wrong, but they've got it worse up north than we do. They might have this situation in place, but then again, maybe their telcos are taking a "wait and see" approach to see how AT&T pulls this off and/or shoots themselves in the foot.

Confirmed. Canada has been rated as one of the worst countries internet access/cost wise and our ISPs/telcos practice even shadier schemes than the Americans (see rogers billing people for their LAN traffic). However many issues stem from Canada's vast geography the large scattered rural population, but that doesn't excuse shady business practices. I think we still hold the top spot for per-capita internet users in the world however.

Please stop equating Ontario to Canada. Just because Ontario has the worst two ISPs in the country (Bell and Rogers) doesn't mean the rest of us do. Look outside Ontario, and things are actually quite nice. Look West of Manitoba, and things are actually great.

Saskatchewan took over the ISP and cellular business and have some of the nicest plans around.

Shaw and Telus actually compete with each other, and have been steadily increasing speeds, increasing data caps, and even removing caps on many plans.

And many smaller entrants have cropped up in the Vancouver Metro Area to provide gigabit service.

And, if you go further East, the Maritimes have some great ISPs as well.

Take off your Ontario-blinders. There's a lot more to Canadian Internet industry than Bell and Rogers.

As it stands, a typical HD Netflix stream uses, what? 2GB an hour? That is 250 hours of streaming in a month for a 500GB cap, which is a lot.

My parents have a 250GB cap with comcast where they are, which is 125 hours of streaming. Still a fair amount.

There are two of them, if they watch different things, that is only ~60hrs, assuming they do nothing else.

Maybe got a new xbox one or PS4? Download a couple of games, that might be 30-50GB per game. That is a third of your data cap with two games.

Now you are at maybe 40hrs of video in a month per person in a 2 person household. That isn't all that much time anymore. 1.3hrs per day.

What about a 5 person household like mine? Doesn't happen much, but occasionally my wife and I want to watch different things and my kids can't always agree on the same thing to watch. So on occasion, we have the full 4 netflix streams going. That's 25hrs per person per month if we had a data cap (thankfully, we don't for ours).

Sure, 200/250GB might be fine for a number of households. Plenty were it won't be.

If I had to take a guess, 250GB would probably cover 80% of households. 500GB would probably cover 92% and 1TB would probably cover 98% of households.

I know darned well my house uses more than 250GB in a typical month. Probably less than 500GB in a typical month. I don't pay that close attention to the upload meter on my router, since I have no cap. Only glanced at it in curiousity a couple of times.

I see everything wrong with AT&T or anyone charging a business to provide their data, without impacting someone's caps. AT&T is already charging the person to get access to the data.

Data caps, especially on wired services, are gouging at its worst.

I dislike them on mobile to. Have a congestion problem? Charge for speed caps, just like most do on wired service.

Yay LTE! Maybe in your market you have 4 tier packages. Lowest tier gets 4Mbps down and 1 up unlimited for $20 a month. Next tier is 10Mbps down and 2 up for $35 a month, next 25/5 for $50 a month unlimited and the final is whatever the LTE can handle (what is it? 50Mbps before overhead and signal degredation?)

Or figure a way to monitize bandwidth priority. A cell with low load, even people with low priority can get super fast speeds. On a cell with lots of load, maybe 100 concurrent connections overtaxing it. Maybe the 10 people who paid for the highest priority get allocated 2% of the bandwidth, the 20 who paid for medium priority get 1% each and 70 who paid for low priority have to share the 60% that is left or something.

And a prohibition against rape was left out of the Ten Commandments, but as to conflicting with the spirit of the text... every element of net neutrality rebels against this concept. I doubt it could even withstand a plain reading of the agency's version of Net Neutrality. You should not be able to defeat prohibitions on plainly destructive or exploitive actions just because you happen to be a creative asshole.

Fun idea: let this happen. Rule that it is illegal. Take the amount of money AT&T made, multiply it by ten. Do this for every FCC violation. When the amount of this hypothetical money equals the amount the company paid to secure spectrum, that spectrum defaults back into the public domain.

Public Knowledge called on Wheeler to "open an inquiry to examine the ways that these types of schemes impact an open Internet" and said that "A pay-for-play model for companies to reach subscribers won't help innovation, will surely stifle new entrants, and has no upside for consumers."

I can think of lots of upside for mobile consumers, if the services they want to use pay up. I would love Twitch.tv to pay for a service like that, and then charge me extra to use it. Because these websites are going to pay a HELL of a lot less for the usage than I would.

Twitch gets more viewers, viewers are happy they can watch more, and AT&T is happy because they get paid. If it's pay-per-use, any service could offer the same thing, by setting up a paywall and passing the cost on. There's got to be a sweet spot in there where everyone gets something.

Of course, if we all could have truly unlimited high-speed mobile data with no downsides, then it'd be a cash grab, that that just isn't how the market is structured. (Plus give everyone unlimited and the swamp the network, like iPhone geeks here did)

Or just give us back our unlimited plans and let me stream Twitch over cell as much as I want.

Do other countries have to deal with a system like this? I have not heard of any other examples, but it seems like the kind of system that ISPs might try outside of the US. Particularly in countries with looser net neutrality laws.

In Australia, ISP's regularly have content and sites that don't count towards your monthly quota. On the other hand, because all ISP's have access to the infrastructure, it becomes a way to stand out from the competition. I can pick my ISP based on which one provides me with what I want.

Using Australia is a bad idea. Australia was one of the first countries to censor all internet connections.